in combination with some other than when taken quite alone. In fact, it is by just such an argument that Plato proves that Pleasure is not the Chief Good:[1] "For," says he, "the life of Pleasure is more choiceworthy in combination with Practical Wisdom than apart from it; but, if the compound be better then simple Pleasure cannot be the Chief Good; because the very Chief Good cannot by any addition become more choiceworthy than it is already:" and it is obvious that nothing else can be the Chief Good, which by combination with any of the things in themselves good comes to be more choiceworthy.
What is there then of such a nature? (meaning, of course, whereof we can partake; because that which we are in search of must be such).
As for those who object that "what all aim at is not necessarily good," I confess I cannot see much in what they say, because what all think we say is. And he who would cut away this ground from under us 1173a will not bring forward things more dependable: because if the argument had rested on the desires of irrational creatures there might have been something in what he says, but, since the rational also desire Pleasure, how can his objection be allowed any weight? and it may be that, even in the lower animals, there is some natural good principle above themselves which aims at the good peculiar to them.
Nor does that seem to be sound which is urged respecting the argument from the contrary: I mean, some people say "it does not follow that Pleasure must be good because Pain is evil, since evil may be opposed to evil, and both evil and good to what is indifferent:" now what they say is right enough in itself but does not hold in the present instance. If both Pleasure and Pain were bad both would have been objects of avoidance; or if neither then neither would have been, at all events they must have fared alike: but now men do plainly avoid the one as bad and choose the other as good, and so there is a complete opposition.
